Close Topic Options

Socialism - Page 2

Warren: it's hard to answer your posts, because I think we're starting from such different perspectives. I think you are not dealing with the world as it is. But I know how annoying it can be, to be told that. I shall Google LETS tomorrow.

Doug

Socialism

I hear what you're saying. We are both coming from extremely different paradigms. I definitely like the pase of this conversation. I'm interested in some of your sources if they are available as they could provide me with some more information we don't need to post here.

Offtopic but, I'm curious as to whether or not you find our current economic system legitimate?

Message Edited! Persephone: No need to quote the post of the user above you. Do not stray from the topic, ensure you use the offtopic tags. Update your profile. (see your intro thread)

Socialism History & Civil Business Politics

Dave: You might like to look at Bill Warren's Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism, and Alec Nove's The Economics of Feasible Socialism. These two books, which came out in the late 70s, helped begin my own questioning of the foundations of the Marxist views which I then held.

There was/is a fellow who is an economist in California, an ex-Marxist, who, as I recall, wrote a lot on co-operative economics as a path to socialism. (I think.) His name was John Roemer. I'll Google on his name and see if I can find some titles.

If you're interested in co-ops, you want to Google on Mondragon, which I think is the name of the successful Spanish co-op. And I think you would be interested in "intentional communities" (sometimes called "communes".). There is a magazine put out by the "Federation of Intentional Communities" in the US -- something like that, maybe the "Federation of Egalitarian Communities".

There is a book, which I have not read yet, by Joshua Moravchik, on the various attempts at socialism, including the Israeli kibbutzim, and their problems.

If we can get the Third World sorted out, with the extension there of the rule of law and a lightly-regulated free market, and on the road to economic growth, then we will see great things in the future.

All you have to do is to grow at 2 or 3 % a year, as all the developed countries have been doing, and you will see your national wealth double every generation. Keep this up for a couple of centuries, coupled with continued scientific and technical progress, and we shall see wonders. Perhaps new social and political organizational forms will evolve among our descendants several generations hence, not now predictable by us, and perhaps they will meet the concerns of present-day socialists.

Doug

Page 2 Socialism

Well I will start by saying there has never been a pure socialist or communist country in history. These other so called communist or socialist countries involved capitalism which completely negates the effect of socialism. I am socialist, but I believe it has to happen on a massive scale because without capitalism a country is isolated and socialism/communism cant survive in isolation.

Message Edited! Persephone: please use uppercase letters as necessary.

Socialism

In what way are you 'socialist'?

I am interested to know how you then define their political establishment. Is it by percentage or power or influence? For instance, if the Chinese are not true Communists because Capitalism influences its governing power then what are they?

Socialism

I am socialist because I am against capitalism, against any centralized form of government and don't think people should have to sell themselves by the hour in exchange for money(basically I believe the workers should own the business).

Well china I would say is a dictatorship because they have a dictator, yes they also have capitalism which also denies the fact that they are socialist.

Socialism - Page 2

That is kind of interesting, that you claim to be socialist, but are against a centralized government. Socialism requires a centralized government. Everything and everybody must submit to the state for socialism to work at all.

As far as workers "selling themselves", that is not how it is in the real world. We sell our labor, our skills, and our knowledge. So, if we gain greater skills and knowledge, our value goes up. This is a form of competition that encourages innovation and invention, as well as encourages higher standards of living for people at all levels. That is what capitalism is all about.

I tend to agree that unbridled capitalism can be bad, but mainly because the bulk of people are apathetic. For example, when capitalism led to horrible child labor practices, if the people in general had refused to deal with any company that used such practices, those practices would have immediately stopped. The same can be said today. If even 50% of a company's customers refuse to deal with it because of what it does or how it does it, the company will change. But most, or all, of us refuse to accept that type of responsibility.

Now, in socialism, the state (rather committees within the state) decide what is and what isn't needed, including how things are to be done. The big problem is that a committee has the square root of the intelligence of the least intelligent member on that committee, and has an infinitesimal ability to use the knowledge, skills, and experience of the most poorly trained neophyte on that committee. So, decisions by committee almost always turn out to be very poor ones.

Socialism demands equality of outcome. Bridled capitalism offers equality of opportunity. Socialism restricts and destroys personal liberty. Bridled capitalism offers the greatest amount of personal liberty available.

That is a very nice sentiment, but probably 90 to 95% of workers are only interested in getting enough to provide for their drinks and games. In order for any business to succeed, whether it is a single person doing their own work, or a mutlinational corporation, enthusiastic, driven people need to lead it. So, if worker A is his own business (what is he doing, anyway?), and just wants to sit and drink beer all day while watching darts tournaments, he isn't going to contribute much to anything, is he? If worker B is enthusiastic, and wants to improve his life and his family's life, then he will work hard and do a good job.

Do you know what? That sounds exactly like capitalism! Worker A is on welfare, takes day jobs, or works just enough to get by. Worker B has gotten an MBA, is an engineering manager, and brings out products that provide jobs for thousands of people, while making life better for everyone.

In socialism, worker A sits at home, drinking Guiness, watching his darts tournament, getting a dole check every week and living in a council house (obviously in England, probably in the Midlands). Worker B is stuck in a little shop, unable to advance, living a life little, if any, better than worker A. Worker B spends his time (after getting an engineering degree), looking over old drawings for mechanical devices, forbidden to make changes or improvements without the advice and consent of the local engineering committee. Of course, all the members of the engineering committee are political appointees, who wouldn't know the difference between a bit of information and a bit in a horse's mouth. So, they make stupid demands upon our worker, while denying him the opportunity to actually make improvements to either his own life or to society in general.

Socialism Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

I agree with most of what you say Nighthawk.

The only part that I would question is when you say capitalism offers equality of opportunity. I certainly don't believe that is realistic when you compare different capitalist societies or even people within the same society.

Small developing capitalist societies don't have the same opportunities as the western developed world. And people born into poverty in rich countries still have less opportunity than people who are rich.

But what you say about socialism is spot on. It is a terrible theory for human beings. Human nature will never allow for socialism to function the way it is intended. Maybe ants have a better shot.

I also think the mere fact that you need a centralized authority to cast power already derails the intention of everyone being treated equal. It just can't work and Rauldrake makes a valuable assessment why at the start of this topic.